What is a better program to replace Apple Mac OS X 10.5.7's iPhoto?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: 3-D font programs?
Next: iMail Rejecting Password
From: Wes Groleau on 19 Dec 2009 00:20 Jolly Roger wrote: > Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: >> I have to agree. iTunes insists that artists have albums and albums >> have songs. Want to keep several versions of the same song together? >> Nope. Several artists collaborate on an album? Pick ONE. > > Couldn't you just as well use the Grouping and Composer fields, or > playlists, for that? Yes, but those are just examples. Basically, those are good if you know what you're looking for exactly. If it's one of those "I'll know it when I see it" things, how do you find it in a huge library? Maybe it really is a good tool, and I'm just "spoiled" from using something better. -- Wes Groleau I mean, like, ya know, right? http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=100
From: nospam on 19 Dec 2009 00:51 In article <isw-898D35.20571318122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > > > Of course you lose control. After you edit an image within iPhoto, the > > > edited version is stored *within the iPhoto library*, not where you put > > > the original. > > > > so what? iphoto will access it for you, or lightroom or whatever other > > app. > > As I've said in other postings, that is true *only if you have a Mac and > a copy of iPhoto. If all you have is a Linux box and a disk with your > iPhoto library on it, then what? the same problem you'd have if you made changes with some other software that doesn't exist on linux, such as photoshop. and realistically, how many people access an iphoto library from linux, let alone use linux? if you need multi-platform access, then find an app that runs on mac, windows and linux. lightroom is mac/win which covers nearly everyone, however, there is no linux support. > > > And later on it's not at all obvious that the image iPhoto > > > is showing you is NOT the original. > > > > it's showing the most recent version. if you made a change, why would > > you want to see the original and not the changed version? > > It's showing the most recent version, which is probably what I want, but > *it's not where I put it* (the original, that is). What I'm viewing is > buried somewhere in the bowels of the iPhoto library, and *that* is what > I don't like. but it's trivial to drag it to the desktop or any folder you want, at any time. in lightroom you can even directly export to various sharing sites (or anything for which someone writes a plugin). > > > > although it's true that there is a reliance on an app, whether it's > > > > iphoto or lightroom or something else, manually remembering where > > > > photos are does not scale. it might work for a few thousand photos, but > > > > can you realistically remember where a particular photo out of tens of > > > > thousands of photos? > > > > > > Of course not. > > > > exactly my point. that's why having an app do the database management > > is *much* better. > > *If you have access to that database program*, I agree. and i do. > > > That is precisely why they are nor randomly tossed onto a > > > disk (which iPhoto will happily do *if you let it*), but are in a fairly > > > stringent heirarchy of folders, each, like the image files, having a > > > (hopefully) obvious name. > > > > but that stringent hierarchy and hopefully obvious name is very > > limiting and does not scale. and what if the name isn't that obvious? > > do your file names have every tidbit of detail, such as names, subject > > matter, location, camera/lens, date/time, etc.? > > I do the best I can to make some sort of *permanent* organization, which > is a lot more than iPhoto does. It's "organization" is totally dependent > on the existence of that database (in uncorrupted format), and a running > instance of iPhoto. as opposed to any other app being totally dependent on the existence of its associated files? > > > Besides, after a lifetime of photography, I'm only up to around 5,000 > > > images; I certainly do not expect to double that number, ever. > > > > that's not really a lot of photos, but if your system works for you, > > that's great. it's just that having an application manage all the > > details is *much* more powerful than doing it manually. > > Again, IF you can depend on that app being around *for as long as the > images have value* (even personal value), then you are correct. Do you > seriously think that Macs running "OS X 25.7 Snarling Wombat" will be > available at the end of your kids' lifetimes, and that it will be able > to run iPhoto? in the unlikely event apple ceases support for all things iphoto, you can at that time, migrate to some other app. since there are millions of iphoto users (and there will be plenty more at this unknown future date), there will be a *huge* opportunity for third parties to create migration utilities and import existing iphoto libraries into their replacements. and worst case, they can always extract the images from the iphoto library itself. > I have a high degree of confidence that apps will still > be available then, on whatever passes for computers, the will be able to > handle files containing JPGs. but will they be able to read the cds and dvds you burned today? can you read floppy discs you wrote 20 years ago? if you can, do the apps that created them still work? with digital media, you need to migrate both the storage medium and the format to something current.
From: nospam on 19 Dec 2009 00:51 In article <isw-4434A7.21112418122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > A lot of my images were from 35mm slides, or old prints. And what is > worse than no names? No metadata. And a dear mother who writes on the > back, the name of every person in the photo, but NO DATE. usually the date the slide was processed (not taken) is on the slide mount somewhere. that should be fairly close. however, transcribing all of the information written on the slide into metadata to be saved in the file after scanning is going to be a pain.
From: Tom Stiller on 19 Dec 2009 07:34 In article <isw-E4BAF4.19490518122009@[216.168.3.50]>, isw <isw(a)witzend.com> wrote: > In article <u0my1gaxld.fsf(a)ethel.the.log>, > Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > isw <isw(a)witzend.com> writes: > > > > > In article <181220091145278518%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>, > > > nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <hgg943$uqe$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 > > > > <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > No, I'm saying that opening iPhoto to search for the individual photo > > > > > is > > > > > one step more than I would like to have to take. > > > > > > > > leave it running. > > > > > > Well, that brings up an annoying "feature" of iPhoto; it's one of those > > > apps that automatically quits when you close its window. So leaving it > > > running means always having to look at it (yes, I know about the yellow > > > button; I don't like doing that). > > > > Some of these posts seem to be magical in ways I don't understand. > > You don't want to close iPhoto, but you don't want to see it. But you > > "don't like" using the yellow button. Here it would seem like a very > > easy way to do exactly what you want to do. No? > > No. Using the yellow button too many times clutters up the dock. Not with Snow Leopard's Dock option to "Minimize windows into application icon". > > *Most* apps are perfectly happy running with no windows open (IMO, > that's one of the many advantages of Mac OS over Windows), so it's > difficult for me to understand why iPhoto doesn't work that way. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
From: AV3 on 19 Dec 2009 10:50
On Dec/19/2009 12:0310 AM, isw wrote: > In article<hghefs$th8$1(a)news.albasani.net>, > AV3<arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On Dec/18/2009 11:4527 AM, nospam wrote: >>> In article<hgg943$uqe$1(a)news.albasani.net>, AV3 >>> <arvimide(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>> ... >> >> >>>> >>> >> >> >> I should have been more specific. I was talking about the originals. > > So was I. > >> For >> instance, I wanted to upload a number of family photos to a geneology >> site, but I couldn't use the "alias" in iPhoto, > > I'm not sure what you're referring to, here... This has been cleared up elsewhere, but to be clear here: the name I give to a picture as filed in iPhoto is not the same name retained by the original, so searching for the original on the hard disk requires iPhoto. iTunes files have names that do correspond to their names both on the hard disk and in the program itself, so they can be searched and used separately. My problem is the disconnect between iPhoto originals and their assigned names within the program. When I have had to correct an erroneously named iTunes file name, I have to correct both the original and the name in the program, but the correction sticks. Not so trying to rename an iPhoto original. > >> I had to find each >> original photo in its actual hard disk location one by one. Finding >> imported iTunes files is a lot easier, if I want to send one to a friend. > > As somebody else already said, iPhoto makes that trivially easy. > I am happy to have learned a better way. -- ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ(a)Wearthlink.net> || ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ(a)Wearthlink.net> || ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ |